The present invention relates generally to the field of oral hygiene. More specifically, this invention relates to the field of tooth decay and halitosis prevention.
It is known that plaque is a microbial coating on tooth surfaces, bound together by natural polymers (mucopolysaccharides), formed by microbial action on the cell debris, food remnants, sugars and starches in the mouth. Embedded in this polymer matrix are the bacteria normal to the oral cavity but, when trapped against tooth surfaces and protected by the matrix from easy removal, problems result. Most dental texts implicate plaque in the formation of tooth decay. In addition, these embedded bacteria release toxins that cause gingivitis, bleeding and swelling of the gums. Gingivitis can lead to periodontis in which gums recede, pockets of infection form and teeth loosen.
Plaque formation is an ongoing process. Various gel and paste dentrifice preparations, mouth rinse and mouth prerinse preparations made plaque and/or tartar control claims. One disadvantage of these preparations is that only a relatively short time during which the teeth are being cleaned or the mouth is being rinsed is available for the preparations to take effect. These preparations generally have little residual effect on plaque formation. Additionally, some of these preparations such as mouth rinses and prerinses contain various antimicrobial substances which may alter the critically balanced microflora of the mouth. Another disadvantage of these preparations is the general infrequency of use. That is, most are used once or perhaps twice daily and seldom when they are most needed, e.g., after meals, snacks, smoking, drinking, coffeebreaks, etc.
Effective oral hygiene requires that three control elements be maintained by the individual:
1. Physical removal of stains, plaque and tartar.
This is accomplished in the strongest sense by scraping and abrasion in the dentist's office. Self administered procedures are required frequently between visits and range from tooth brushing with an appropriate abrasive toothpaste through flossing and water jet action down to certain abrasive foods and even the action of the tongue against tooth surfaces.
2. Surfactant Cleansing.
This is required to remove: food debris and staining substances before they adhere to the tooth surfaces; normal dead cellular (epithelial) material which is continually sloughed off from the surfaces of the oral cavity and microbial degradation products derived from all of the above. Besides the obvious hygienic and health benefits related to simple cleanliness provided by surfactants, there is an important cosmetic and sense-of-well-being benefit provided by surfactant cleansing. Research has shown that the primary source of bad breath is the retention and subsequent degradation of dead cellular material sloughed off continuously by the normal, healthy mouth.
3. Frequency of Cleansing.
This is perhaps the most difficult to provide in today's fast-paced work and social environment. Most people recognize that their teeth should be brushed at least 3 times a day plus after each snacking occasion.
The simple fact is that most of the population brush once a day, some brush morning and evening, but precious few carry toothbrush and dentrifice to use the other three or four times a day for optimal oral hygiene. Consumer research suggests that the population brushes an average of 1.3 times a day. Thus, the 24 hour period between brushings for a majority of the population provides optimum plaque forming conditions with no interruptions.
Since plaque is regarded by most of the dental profession as a causative agent leading to various dental pathologies as noted above, there is considerable desire by most consumers to remove or prevent the formation of plaque on a daily basis. There are three oral care strategies which address the problem of plaque; abrasion, antimicrobial agents and removal of precursors to plaque.
1. Abrasive removal of the plaque film, once it has firmly adhered to the tooth surface, is the only totally effective cleansing mechanism. Again, professional dental hygiene is the most effective, but recently a number of special abrasive toothpastes have been accepted by dental organizations as partially removing adhered plaque and the tartar which subsequently forms from the plaque.
2. Antimicrobial action could affect plaque formation in two ways, (a) reducing the number of bacteria in the mouth with forms the mucopolysaccharides and (b) killing those bacteria trapped in the film to prevent further growth and metabolism. However, the medical and dental community is divided about the advisability of frequent use of antimicrobial agents in the mouth in rinses or prerinses, especially the most effective ones, except under strict supervision of licensed practitioners. There are a number of reasons given, but one concern is that such materials would upset the ecological balance of the mouth. A balanced, "friendly" microbial population is necessary to prevent pathogenic organisms from taking over.
3. Removal of plaque precursors requires the reduction of food sources and building blocks required for the bacteria to synthesize the mucopolysaccharides which polymerize into the plaque film. Going far back into the chain of events leading to plaque formation and interrupting the chain has much to commend it as a sound oral hygiene strategy. However, for this strategy to be effective, the plaque building blocks must be interrupted periodically. As noted above, heretofore, the oral hygiene preparations described above fall short on "frequency-of-use" basis.
In addition, incomplete mastication of food frequently results in undigested portions of food, termed food debris, remaining in the mouth especially in locations which may easily trap small particles, such as, by example, between teeth. Food debris may then be colonized by bacteria which promote the decay of the food debris and thereby substantially contribute to the cause of bad breath. High pH in the mouth provides a fertile breeding ground for bacterial growth.
Many products are available in the market which purport to remove odors associated with halitosis. These products generally serve to mask the effects of bad breath by imparting a pleasant smell to the breath rather than eliminating the causative factor of bad breath. As such, these products constitute breath sweeteners such as candies, mints, gums, sprays and other various substances and formulations which essentially serve to disguise malodorous breath. Also, these sweeteners cause tooth decay. Other substances in the market, such as mouthwashes and so on, purport to kill or destroy bacteria and hence to reduce the effects of bad breath by preventing increased rates of food debris putrefaction by bacteria. There is a need for a product which effectively reduces or eliminates odors associated with bad breath at the source of said odor; to wit, food debris, in a consistent and reliable manner which also has tooth decay prevention capabilities.
In spite of conventional oral hygiene procedures, food debris exists in the mouth in varying amounts. The chemical description of the bulk of this debris, at least insofar as it relates to bacterial colonization of the food debris, is starch.
The prophylactic benefit of liquid and paste dentifrices in the prevention of halitosis and tooth decay is severely limited. Additionally, as is well-known, dentifrices prophylaxis requires the brushing of teeth and the tools necessary to accomplish that task, i.e. a toothbrush and portable water, are not always handy. In the minute-to-minute workings of society, the carrying around of a toothbrush and dentrifice, let alone seeking out portable water, is impractical; this accounts for the aforementioned existence of a proliferation of confections which seek to mask the odors caused by halitosis rather than prevention the formulation of odors at their source.
Many people enjoy the consumption of candy; however, there are many concerns relating thereto. For example, tooth decay and cavities have long been associated with candy as well the lack of nutritional ingredients. Sugar-free candies have been attempted in the prior art to solve or reduce the tooth decay problem associated with candy consumption. However, these sugar-free candies provide little in the way of nutritional value. In addition, these sugar-free candies have an after-taste, have side effects and are perceived by many to cause cancer due to the use of saccharin, and the like.
The problems associated with candy are of particular concern as they relate to children. Children enjoy the consumption of candy while getting children to brush their teeth or to take vitamins has been a long standing parental problem. The problems discussed above concerning tooth decay and halitosis are made even more severe concerning children due to the difficulty in administering tooth decay prevention measures. As a result, tooth decay and bad breath in children have become difficult to control.
In view of the foregoing, there is a demand for a breath mint which is easy to take and is suitable and palatable to a child. There is also a demand for a breath mint which is candy-like in configuration and taste yet is not only safe for the teeth but actually prevents tooth decay and the problems of halitosis associated therewith. Further, it is also desirable for a candy item to include vitamins so that the user, particularly as child, may simultaneously receive vitamins while enjoying a candy-like confection.